> Early in my career, I thought my lack of "getting OOP" was due to some profound missing piece of understanding
It simply does not have formal definitions and examples. Almost everything in OOP books and content is defined like "imagine you have this situation and you want to do this thing..." and then it starts with ships, containers, ports, cranes or animals and lions.
The thing I like about fp is that there's surprisingly little things to know, and they all have formal definitions. The definitions are also quite simple and build on previous definitions. If you know what a data type and a `map` operation is, you can easily understand a functor. You add to it another ingredient and you have an applicative functor. Another one, and you get a monad.
You make small steps towards knowledge that are solid.
It simply does not have formal definitions and examples. Almost everything in OOP books and content is defined like "imagine you have this situation and you want to do this thing..." and then it starts with ships, containers, ports, cranes or animals and lions.
The thing I like about fp is that there's surprisingly little things to know, and they all have formal definitions. The definitions are also quite simple and build on previous definitions. If you know what a data type and a `map` operation is, you can easily understand a functor. You add to it another ingredient and you have an applicative functor. Another one, and you get a monad.
You make small steps towards knowledge that are solid.